If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should we rent Chris Kaman?

He makes $14m, but it's an expiring contract. We have just enough cap room to acquire him without sending a player back. New Orleans' coach just said they're benching him (in what appears to be a tank-ish move, not because he suddenly sucks).

So... what do you think? Would you do it for any of the following: 1st pick, 2nd rounder, future 1st, future 2nd? Might they?

On the one hand it would be risky to give up another pick, but on the other we have more young talent than we now what to do with right now anyway, and more likely we'll be signing or trading for another vet the next time we add a piece as it is anyway.

So why not see if you can scoop up Kaman for the rest of the season? You don't lose any players, the backup C is now completely solid, and he'd probably make us better.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

He makes $14m, but it's an expiring contract. We have just enough cap room to acquire him without sending a player back. New Orleans' coach just said they're benching him (in what appears to be a tank-ish move, not because he suddenly sucks).

So... what do you think? Would you do it for any of the following: 1st pick, 2nd rounder, future 1st, future 2nd? Might they?

On the one hand it would be risky to give up another pick, but on the other we have more young talent than we now what to do with right now anyway, and more likely we'll be signing or trading for another vet the next time we add a piece as it is anyway.

So why not see if you can scoop up Kaman for the rest of the season? You don't lose any players, the backup C is now completely solid, and he'd probably make us better.

I read this story online of them benching Kaman and thought the same thing. If nothing else he gives us yet another low post/rebounding option. His salary def scares me (even though he is an expiring contract, it stops us from being able to add other pieces until the summer). Definitely an interesting thought.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Kaman would make us better. Anything to keep Amundson on the bench would help this team and I think it'd be wise to find a competent big who can spell Hibbert. But given that we'd be taking back $14M in salary and a rental, I'd only offer up a couple of 2nd round picks and a bench player like Lou or AJ.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

I read this story online of them benching Kaman and thought the same thing. If nothing else he gives us yet another low post/rebounding option. His salary def scares me (even though he is an expiring contract, it stops us from being able to add other pieces until the summer). Definitely an interesting thought.

The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

From a fan's perspective, it makes plenty of sense: If Amundson were a developing young guy, maybe you'd want him to get more minutes, but at this point in his career he is what he is - and what he is is worse than Chris Kaman by a lot.

However, is a backup big man worth 14 million dollars, even for a rental? I don't think so. Somebody still has to spend that money.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

I think Simon is enjoying the payroll being down for a year. After spending so much money on actual piles of ****.

There are few players he would make a 14m exception for. A backup C isn't one.

He's paying at least some of that no matter what; there's a minimum cap that we are also below, that the difference will be spread to every player on the roster.

But you're right, it's probably not 14m, either.

However, this is a FAR cry from asking Herb to pay any tax, it's still WAY less than he's been paying, and it's not hard to explain to him that this makes us a better team RIGHT NOW. So I think he could be talked into it pretty easily. Kaman is a good player.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

From a fan's perspective, it makes plenty of sense: If Amundson were a developing young guy, maybe you'd want him to get more minutes, but at this point in his career he is what he is - and what he is is worse than Chris Kaman by a lot.

However, is a backup big man for 14 million dollars, even for a rental? I don't think so. Somebody still has to spend that money.

The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Depends on other possible deals. If nothing else happens by trade deadline it be dumb not to get him for a 2nd rnd pick. Yes his salary is 14mil, but it would only cost the Pacers about 1/3, about 4.5mil. He'd be great to have for 25 games and playoffs!

Bucks could really use him with Bogut breaking his ankle, but I don't see a way for them to get him. All there players sux and got bad contracts.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Infinite MAN_force For This Useful Post:

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

As far as whether the Simons would want to pay the $14m? It would be less than that. Even if they acquired him today we would only have to pay 60% of his salary $8.4m - there are only 49 games left. if they wait another 8 games they ony have to pay him $7m and so forth.

He would help us, assuming he's healthy, in good shape and wants to play

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Hey now! You better be careful. Irrelevant is a loaded word around here.

I don't know that Kaman makes this team "enough better" to be worth having the franchise spend $14 million for him. When it comes to team finances, I'll be the first to admit that I know very little. But spending $14 million when you don't have to seems like a bad idea for a team that is often said to be struggling financially. I could be wrong about how this works though. After all, I'm a fan of Pacers basketball, not Pacers financial management.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

As far as whether the Simons would want to pay the $14m? It would be less than that. Even if they acquired him today we would only have to pay 60% of his salary $8.4m - there are only 49 games left. if they wait another 8 games they ony have to pay him $7m and so forth.

He would help us, assuming he's healthy, in good shape and wants to play

I assume, from a SalaryCap level...that he'd show up ast $12.5 mil...but from a payment POV.....the Simon's would pay on a "per game" basis based off of how many games are left on the season?

Wow....

Not bad as a rental option. I wouldn't send a 1st round pick...but a 2nd round pick if this were the case. Can other Teams do this?

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

It kind of becomes redundant when Foster is healthy, which will be probably half the year.

Sorry, I have to disagre....adding a Player like Kaman ( to play as a 7th to 9th rotational Player ) while having Foster in a reserve "break in case of emergency" role ( to play as the 10th to 11th rotational Player ) is what I think is the type of depth that I think we need to make a deep Playoff run.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

That was exactly my point. We need just as much help on the wing (another outside shooter) as we do another backup big.

However I didnt realize that we wouldnt have to pay his entire 14mil salary. I'm all for getting this guy (9pts, 6rebs, 7 footer) to back up Roy. I would be willing to part with any combination of Lou, a future pick and "cash considerations".

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

I've been beating the Kaman drum for a while now but I was told that "Larry was waiting for the right deal" it's nice to see that some people are finally coming to my side

Well, if what Unclebuck says is correct, it might be the best move to wait. Why make a deal for a player now that you can get at half-price later? In addition, he'll be rested from not getting his usual minutes and maybe we'll even get a discount because he'll no longer be a major part of the rotation (and thus appear less valuable to the Hornets). Who knows, right?